Good-bye Gordo

With the resignation of BC Premier Gordon Campbell earlier this week, many British Columbians have been heard to say, “About time,” and “Good riddance.” But is it really?

Think about it. Think about the government which preceded the Liberals in BC. Think about what went on. Think about how unstable our province was, politically and economically. Think about how much we all wished we lived in Alberta instead.

Do we really want to return our beloved province to those days? I think not.

Carole James seems to be heralding Campbell’s resignation as a sign that the NDP will soon regain control of the province. Oh really? Only if the voters of BC conveniently manage to forget BingoGate . . . and what about the 6 NDP Premiers we had in 10 years?

Do we really want to return to that kind of political instability? Not to mention the embarrassment of fiascos like BingoGate. I certainly don’t.

When I first interviewed Gordon Campbell, way back when he was still fairly new to the provincial political scene, something he said then stuck in my mind. He based his economic policies on the things his mother taught him. And the most important thing she taught him (please forgive me, if I can’t remember the exact quote, it’s been awhile), was that you can’t spend money you don’t have. Under the NDP, there was a lot of unwise spending going on – the ferries come to mind.

You know what? That’s exactly what Gordon Campbell and the Liberals did. They tried not to spend money they didn’t have. They pulled our provincial economy out of the toilet.

Yes, they made some bad decisions. Like the whole thing with closing the care homes, so that our elderly don’t have enough places to go, to receive proper care. That’s up there on my list of Gordo’s big mistakes.

The HST is another bad decision. When an overwhelming number of voters in the province sign petitions against something, it’s a clear sign that we don’t want it. We live in a democracy. In a democracy, the people are supposed to have a say. Looks like Gordo has finally realized that . . . too bad he didn’t clue in when Blair Lekstrom resigned his cabinet post and handed back his Liberal Party membership. It might have saved him a lot of grief.

I really hope the BC Liberals manage to elect someone good, to replace Campbell as leader. Someone with good economic sense, someone with tough moral fibre, someone who’s not going to lead BC down paths we really don’t want, or need to travel again.

Good-bye Gordon . . . it’s been real.

Today's word is: Remediation

Remediation. That’s a word which has been thrown around quite a bit lately, in the media. It kind of reminds me of synergy and synergies, the buzz words of the late 1990s and early 2000s. The two words, synergy and remediation are nothing alike, obviously, but it is the frequency with which the words have been used, that is familiar to me.

Synergy: increased effectiveness, achievement etc., produced by combined action, co-operation etc. (from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary pp 1471, 1998 edition)

Yet I cannot find an actual definition of remediation in this same dictionary. I’ve got remedy, and remedial . . . but no remediation. The definition which seems to best meet the most frequent use of the word is this: means of counteracting or removing anything undesirable.

One can see, given the state of the world’s economies, governments, etc., why remediation seems to becoming this decade’s newest buzzword.

I hate buzzwords, with a passion. Every time a new one surfaces, you know there is always a better, simpler, less convoluted word, or words, which can be used in it’s place.

Take for example, the site where the Fort Hotel once stood. Following the fire which destroyed the building, it became an even greater eyesore, than when it was simply an old, dilapidated building. Did the owners care? No. As all Fort St. John residents know, he merely slapped up a butt-ugly fence in a token gesture to public safety, and called it good. The City forked over a sizeable chunk of money to put up a better fence. I’ve heard figures between $10,000 and $40,000 for this fence. It’s a very pretty fence. But it doesn’t change the fact, that what lies behind it, is a disgrace.

So, the owner fails to clean up the property. He refuses to pay his property taxes, and claimed to be “donating” the property to the City. What a big-hearted, community-minded individual he is. Horseshit. The Fort has been nothing but a farce since the day that guy bought and said he was going to turn it into a pub and sushi bar.

Now that it belongs to the City, the property is going to be remediated to the tune of $200,000+. Really. They are going to “counteract or remove anything undesirable”?

Don’t they really mean, clean it up? Hey, yeah! Why don’t they do that?? Just clean it up! I bet it costs taxpayers a heck of a lot less than remediation. After-all, I seem to remember that using synergies cost us a lot of money.

Just say what you mean. It’s not like it’s gonna kill you.

That’s it for today. Thanks, as always, for reading. I’m going to go remediate the lunch dishes now, and perhaps remediate the laundry pile as well, before the kids come home from school. Then I’ll get them to put some synergies to work to remediate their bedrooms . . . after they’ve done their homework.